If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Minneapolis Star Tribune)   Columnist rejects creationism for evolution after becoming familiar with the evidence. Then blames sciences for his former ignorance   (startribune.com) divider line 129
    More: Fail, evolution, innovations  
•       •       •

4289 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Jul 2012 at 11:12 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



129 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-24 11:19:50 AM  
Lack of science education is the tin foil hat used by creationists to keep knowledge out of their brainwaves.
 
2012-07-24 11:20:45 AM  
api.ning.com
 
2012-07-24 11:21:40 AM  
In before Bevets...
 
2012-07-24 11:21:41 AM  
To be fair the article is right. I can't tell you how many creationists tell me evolution isn't valid because "it's just a theory".


Lern 2 terminology bettr
 
2012-07-24 11:22:59 AM  
He laments not studying evolution thoroughly in school, but he doesn't mention the fact that religious lobbies work very hard to bar evolution from being taught at all.

I do like his points about polarization. You're not going to convince anyone of anything if you constantly act superior and if you treat your opposition as a collection of uneducated idiots.
 
2012-07-24 11:24:13 AM  

Lanadapter: To be fair the article is right. I can't tell you how many creationists tell me evolution isn't valid because "it's just a theory".


Lern 2 terminology bettr


Yeah, it's the terminology that's the whole problem here.
 
2012-07-24 11:27:37 AM  
FTFA: "it gradually dawned on me that I no longer accepted my initial premise; I did not believe the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis were a literal chronicle of how the Earth and its life forms originated. "

Look, not even reasonable Christian theologians believe the Book of Genesis, or any of the rest of the bible, is a "literal chronicle" of anything. Literalism is what happens when people are too ignorant to grasp concepts like "metaphor" and "parable", which is especially odd for Christians, because Jesus freaking LOVED speaking in parables.

I'm all for people coming to the realization that faith does not trump science, but literalism is the refuge of people who don't even understand or know their own religion.
 
2012-07-24 11:29:20 AM  

the_vicious_fez: if you treat your opposition as a collection of uneducated idiots.


Hey, if the dunce cap fits...
 
2012-07-24 11:30:27 AM  
this was surprisingly well written for an article on this subject linked to fark

thanks submitter
 
2012-07-24 11:33:34 AM  
Wait until the author actually reads the bible and realizes how much of a violent, sexist, vile POS it is. He's going to be an atheists in no time.
 
2012-07-24 11:33:43 AM  

Thorak: odd for Christians, because Jesus freaking LOVED speaking in parables.


to be honest a lot of folks miss damn near everything he did

we need to find a more accurate term then Christian for those sort of folks

religious traditionalists makes it sound, well better then it is

maybe American dominionists
 
2012-07-24 11:35:29 AM  
Well, it's got to be somebody else's fault, right?

/farking blameless christian farks
 
2012-07-24 11:36:16 AM  
He still doesn't understand what scientific theory is, and he totally miffs on the concept of skepticism. Saying he's changed if view on creationism is repainting a totaled Yugo. His fundamentals need work, not views on a specific argument.
 
2012-07-24 11:36:19 AM  
I predict many cherry picked out of context quotes from biologists, countered with examples of biblical laws that would land one in jail if followed today before this thread dies.

So sayeth me.
 
2012-07-24 11:36:51 AM  
As someone who used to teach high school students, let me point out that:

(a) creationism is usually something that happens outside of or even after schooling, the correct information is in fact presented at some point (typically several times) over the course of several bio classes

and

(b) one of the running problems you have to face as an educator is that you can alleviate ignorance but there's simply no fixing stupid. Especially if it's stupid externally reinforced by another party. All you can do is present the truth, but if the kid's parents and community insist vehemently on a lie you've got about as much chance as convincing him to stay off drugs when his best friend is a dealer.

What I'm saying here is that the dude may be mixing up secular education and religion again. It's the priests that claim to have access to miracles that violate the laws of physics/sociology/etc, teachers admit that they're human and cant magically reshape the world by the power of will alone.
 
2012-07-24 11:36:55 AM  
changed his view, excuse me.
 
2012-07-24 11:37:01 AM  
The chief fault lies with the scientific establishment. The chief fault is that your science teachers failed you miserably. I knew the difference between a theory and a hypothesis when I was in middle school. I had example after example of how evolution worked and the evidence behind it in my high school biology class. How do you even do a bio class without teaching this?
 
2012-07-24 11:37:25 AM  

qorkfiend: Lanadapter: To be fair the article is right. I can't tell you how many creationists tell me evolution isn't valid because "it's just a theory".


Lern 2 terminology bettr

Yeah, it's the terminology that's the whole problem here.


It's certainly a big part.

Not CSB:

Recently, there was a local election with a bunch of ballot initiatives. This being California, I get tons of election materials before the actual election date, including a book of all the ballot initiatives, explanations of what they do in plain English, and sometimes pro/con arguments. So a few days before voting day, I sat down with this book to read through everything and make some well-informed decisions.

One of the initiatives was a $49 parcel tax. As I recall, there was either very little opinion content surrounding this initiative or none at all. What was DEFINITELY missing was a definition of the word 'parcel' and so I sat there for a good five minutes trying to figure out why I hadn't heard the shrieking of the masses and UPS/Fedex over a new $49 shipping surcharge.

/Then I went and googled 'parcel tax' and things made more sense.
 
2012-07-24 11:38:25 AM  

Farking Canuck: Wait until the author actually reads the bible and realizes how much of a violent, sexist, vile POS it is. He's going to be an atheists in no time.


For what it's worth, the opinion of Richard Dawkins and other Antitheists regarding the religious (even those of moderate stripes) isn't much more enlightening than the Old Testament.
 
2012-07-24 11:39:13 AM  

adenosine: The chief fault lies with the scientific establishment. The chief fault is that your science teachers failed you miserably. I knew the difference between a theory and a hypothesis when I was in middle school. I had example after example of how evolution worked and the evidence behind it in my high school biology class. How do you even do a bio class without teaching this?


John Scopes would like a word.
 
2012-07-24 11:40:17 AM  

the_vicious_fez: You're not going to convince anyone of anything if you constantly act superior and if you treat your opposition as a collection of uneducated idiots.


Stupid is as stupid does.
 
2012-07-24 11:40:27 AM  

loonatic112358: Thorak: odd for Christians, because Jesus freaking LOVED speaking in parables.

to be honest a lot of folks miss damn near everything he did

we need to find a more accurate term then Christian for those sort of folks

religious traditionalists makes it sound, well better then it is

maybe American dominionists


Paulists, or Bible worshipers. Biblical literalists practice an ironic form of idolatry. The book actually separates them from God.

Jesus left his ministry in the hands of Peter, not Paul. Those two had a rather famous falling out, and went their separate ways. Yet the folks that canonized the Bible left us primarily with the epistles of Paul, not Peter. Why would they do this?
 
2012-07-24 11:41:40 AM  

loonatic112358: Thorak: odd for Christians, because Jesus freaking LOVED speaking in parables.

to be honest a lot of folks miss damn near everything he did

we need to find a more accurate term then Christian for those sort of folks

religious traditionalists makes it sound, well better then it is

maybe American dominionists


Texting. It's not just for mobiles.
 
2012-07-24 11:42:35 AM  

Marine1: Farking Canuck: Wait until the author actually reads the bible and realizes how much of a violent, sexist, vile POS it is. He's going to be an atheists in no time.

For what it's worth, the opinion of Richard Dawkins and other Antitheists regarding the religious (even those of moderate stripes) isn't much more enlightening than the Old Testament.


Um... why would you expect knowing that someone is wrong to be enlightening? It's not some dark secret, religious people being wrong has been pretty much common knowledge since the Renaissance, people have just been subtler about it because of the church's whole tendency to brutally murder you for pointing it out thing.
 
2012-07-24 11:43:03 AM  

the_vicious_fez: He laments not studying evolution thoroughly in school, but he doesn't mention the fact that religious lobbies work very hard to bar evolution from being taught at all.

I do like his points about polarization. You're not going to convince anyone of anything if you constantly act superior and if you treat your opposition as a collection of uneducated idiots.


You don't see me kicking in the door of churches to make them learn shiat that's useful. You do see Christians doing the opposite IN EVERY farkING AREA OF LIFE. (Including the houses of worship of other religions.) The problem isn't that people aren't selling knowledge sweetly enough, it's that the overly religious get to enjoy the fruits of that knowledge while trying to chop down the tree that provides it. Deny them the participation until they behave themselves, and the problem solves itself. Zombie death cults should be given what they want, as swiftly as possible.
 
2012-07-24 11:45:22 AM  

Thorak: FTFA: "it gradually dawned on me that I no longer accepted my initial premise; I did not believe the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis were a literal chronicle of how the Earth and its life forms originated. "

Look, not even reasonable Christian theologians believe the Book of Genesis, or any of the rest of the bible, is a "literal chronicle" of anything. Literalism is what happens when people are too ignorant to grasp concepts like "metaphor" and "parable", which is especially odd for Christians, because Jesus freaking LOVED speaking in parables.

I'm all for people coming to the realization that faith does not trump science, but literalism is the refuge of people who don't even understand or know their own religion.


To quote Robert Bakker, paleontologist, dual PhD and ordained minister, to take a literal interpretation of the Bible is to rob it of its eternal message. Sadly that kind of thinking doesn't jive well with the "God just went *click*" crowd.
 
2012-07-24 11:45:52 AM  

the_vicious_fez: He laments not studying evolution thoroughly in school, but he doesn't mention the fact that religious lobbies work very hard to bar evolution from being taught at all.

I do like his points about polarization. You're not going to convince anyone of anything if you constantly act superior and if you treat your opposition as a collection of uneducated idiots.


There's not too much that can be done to help the willfully ignorant.
 
2012-07-24 11:46:41 AM  

Jim_Callahan: As someone who used to teach high school students, let me point out that:

(a) creationism is usually something that happens outside of or even after schooling, the correct information is in fact presented at some point (typically several times) over the course of several bio classes


I went to high school in the early 1980's. While they never taught "creationism", my biology teachers had to bend over backwards to accommodate these willfully ignorant puddenheads every time evolution was mentioned. You'd have thought that it was a viable alternate theory if you weren't paying attention, or were one of these aforementioned puddenheads. What backwater hick state did I go to high school in? California.
 
2012-07-24 11:49:07 AM  

loonatic112358: Thorak: odd for Christians, because Jesus freaking LOVED speaking in parables.

to be honest a lot of folks miss damn near everything he did

we need to find a more accurate term then Christian for those sort of folks

religious traditionalists makes it sound, well better then it is

maybe American dominionists


What's wrong with "idiots"? Too broad a term? Too pejorative?
 
2012-07-24 11:49:44 AM  

kasmel: the_vicious_fez: if you treat your opposition as a collection of uneducated idiots.

Hey, if the dunce cap fits...


Wait, acting condescendingly is one thing... but wasn't lack of education the problem in the first place? They are mostly uneducated (even more so in the subject itself) and the main problem is not that the information/evidence is not available but that some people just choose not to believe it because they fail to distinguish the difference between fact and belief, plus they feel it conflicts with their fundamental "truth" which is not even necessarily the case. I see the point in not acting superior because you won't get your message across, but for some people that message is never going to stick anyway and I can only imagine the frustration of some educators on the subject.
 
2012-07-24 11:50:26 AM  

qorkfiend: Lanadapter: To be fair the article is right. I can't tell you how many creationists tell me evolution isn't valid because "it's just a theory".


Lern 2 terminology bettr

Yeah, it's the terminology that's the whole problem here.


Actually, the big creationist preachers accept everything that's true about evolution, including the fact that a species can diverge into two or more new species over time, but of course they'll keep saying "Sure, Alaska rabbits and Florida rabbits can't interbreed, but they're still rabbits!" They're also still Leporids (as are hares), Lagomorphs (as are pikas), and Euarchontoglires (as are we). They never stopped being those things. They just developed traits which denote them as rabbits rather than primates.

Basically, creationists accept everything that evolution predicts...except they claim evolution predicts ridiculous things like a crocoduck.
 
2012-07-24 11:50:59 AM  
Keep your damn fairy tales out of state funded education.

Simple. You want to brainwash children? Do it on your own dollar.
 
2012-07-24 11:52:53 AM  

CheekyMonkey: the_vicious_fez: He laments not studying evolution thoroughly in school, but he doesn't mention the fact that religious lobbies work very hard to bar evolution from being taught at all.

I do like his points about polarization. You're not going to convince anyone of anything if you constantly act superior and if you treat your opposition as a collection of uneducated idiots.

There's not too much that can be done to help the willfully ignorant.


Henceforth I shall be rating all debates on the Vicious Fez Shrieking Scale (patent pending). It goes from 0 to 10, with 0 being an early bird nursing home dinner in the assisted living wing and 10 being a group of five year olds having a screaming match. I'd say 3-5 on that scale is decent debate. Over 6 and people stop listening to each other. It stops being a debate because no one cares what the other side has to say.

The comment I quoted is probably about a 7, and the reason it's important to listen to your opposition, even if you think they're dead wrong, is because they won't listen to you if you're not answering their questions. Then you think they're idiots, they think the same about you, and nothing gets solved. That's not debate, that's just aural masturbation.

/Orly Taitz is a permanent 11.
 
2012-07-24 11:54:44 AM  

IlGreven: Basically, creationists accept everything that evolution predicts...


Except the idea that mankind is an ape.

manvshorror.files.wordpress.com

Personally, it seems pretty obvious to me.
 
2012-07-24 11:55:13 AM  

Ed Grubermann: Jim_Callahan: As someone who used to teach high school students, let me point out that:

(a) creationism is usually something that happens outside of or even after schooling, the correct information is in fact presented at some point (typically several times) over the course of several bio classes

I went to high school in the early 1980's. While they never taught "creationism", my biology teachers had to bend over backwards to accommodate these willfully ignorant puddenheads every time evolution was mentioned. You'd have thought that it was a viable alternate theory if you weren't paying attention, or were one of these aforementioned puddenheads. What backwater hick state did I go to high school in? California.


Survey data from the USA paints a picture that is even worse than this. Despite it being illegal many Bio teachers in many areas of the country are themselves Creationists and inject it into their bio classes. Other teachers are too scared of "making waves" and either avoid the topic altogether or bend over backwards to, like you said, not offend anyone.

His point about the scientific establishment was partially right, although to call it the scientific establishment would be wrong. Dawkins is more of a popularizer of science these days, and even in that role he acted more as a popularizer than a voice of the establishment. I have mixed feelings on Dawkins. In general I think the approach of calling or insinuating that all religious people are dumb does more harm than good. But I also think most of the time people interpret statements as referring to all religious people when clearly they are aimed at a more limited subset.
 
2012-07-24 11:55:30 AM  

JorgiX: kasmel: the_vicious_fez: if you treat your opposition as a collection of uneducated idiots.

Hey, if the dunce cap fits...

Wait, acting condescendingly is one thing... but wasn't lack of education the problem in the first place? They are mostly uneducated (even more so in the subject itself) and the main problem is not that the information/evidence is not available but that some people just choose not to believe it because they fail to distinguish the difference between fact and belief, plus they feel it conflicts with their fundamental "truth" which is not even necessarily the case. I see the point in not acting superior because you won't get your message across, but for some people that message is never going to stick anyway and I can only imagine the frustration of some educators on the subject.


As this is a debate about science, let's do it right. Can your provide proof of this?
 
2012-07-24 11:57:20 AM  
No, the blame lies in you, Mr. Author, learning to read a farking book.

I've been called a religious bigot by someone who insisted everyone has the right to believe anything they want, regardless of the outcome. I wanted to know why we bothered with schools. No answer.

Tickle Mittens: You don't see me kicking in the door of churches to make them learn shiat that's useful


Perhaps you should start.
 
2012-07-24 11:59:27 AM  

the_vicious_fez: He laments not studying evolution thoroughly in school, but he doesn't mention the fact that religious lobbies work very hard to bar evolution from being taught at all.

I do like his points about polarization. You're not going to convince anyone of anything if you constantly act superior and if you treat your opposition as a collection of uneducated idiots.


Being able to acting condescending and superior is the only bonus to dealing with fundamentalist's that are infact so dumb that the only improvements in science and technology that they readily accept are the ones that allow them to kill and oppress each other easier.

If someone sudden unraveled the mysteries of the universe and time and space there would be line several hundred miles long just to signup and join the angry lynch mob. Fundamentalist Religions are all about fear. They appeal to peoples fear and hatred. And when you fear thing you dont understand and also happen to be really dumb you fear everything. Fundamentalist Religions don't directly teach that it totally cool to hate everything you dont understand BUT they really seem to unofficially endorse it with great enthusiasm.

Samuel Clemens is occasionally quoted as saying "God created man in his own image. And Man being a gentleman returned the favor." The suggested interpretation is that most religious leaders throughout history couldnt understand the possibility that God might not be a hateful ignorant intolerant douche.
 
2012-07-24 12:01:40 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Marine1: Farking Canuck: Wait until the author actually reads the bible and realizes how much of a violent, sexist, vile POS it is. He's going to be an atheists in no time.

For what it's worth, the opinion of Richard Dawkins and other Antitheists regarding the religious (even those of moderate stripes) isn't much more enlightening than the Old Testament.

Um... why would you expect knowing that someone is wrong to be enlightening? It's not some dark secret, religious people being wrong has been pretty much common knowledge since the Renaissance, people have just been subtler about it because of the church's whole tendency to brutally murder you for pointing it out thing.


Religious people being wrong.

I love how we take the idea that someone believes in a higher power and then automatically translate that to being wrong. My girlfriend is Jewish; I'm Christian. I don't see her as "wrong". She has a different point of view.

Now, when it comes to evolution, I agree... it farking happened and it's ridiculous that some of my religious kin can't accept that. However, that seems to be the rallying cry to dismantle all religion, on the basis that all religious people are backwards and dogmatic. It's not true, and a lot of the things guys like Dawkins say smacks of the Soviet-era anti-religious propaganda that advocated throwing the religious in mental hospitals. It throws out the whole of individuals for the fact that they believe in God to even the smallest extent. It's fundamentalism of a different stripe.

Speaking of the Soviet era, the assertion that the church (that is, the Christian church) is somehow brutally murdering people these days for speaking out against the idea of God is ridiculous. Dawkins isn't dead, you aren't dead, and Hitch died of what was most likely tobacco and drinking-induced cancer. Opponents of religion that held government positions worldwide during the 20th century did much more damage to the humanity (intellectuals, especially) than Christianity did.

/feeling weird this morning, so sorry if my argument doesn't flow... light headed, almost
 
2012-07-24 12:01:54 PM  
First, let's be clear that where you stand on creation (a k a intelligent design, these days) vs. evolution has nothing to do with personal intelligence. There are very smart people on both sides of the issue.

Wrong.

So when I was a believer in a literal interpretation of Genesis, was I a danger to society? As are most creationists people, I was a law-abiding voter, volunteer and taxpayer, involved with my community and concerned about the nation and the world. I did, however, support a self-righteous contempt for the scientific community -- how can you not when you believe its foundation is delusional at best, or Satanic at worst?

Yes you were, FTFY, this is why you were a danger.

how can 21st-century people possibly believe that God fashioned the world in seven days a few thousand years ago? Why? Because it is emotionally comforting and anthropomorphic -- the creation myth of our tribe -- and therefore naturally attractive to humans; and because those in the scientific community have failed to effectively share the knowledge they've gleaned.

OH STFU already, those of us in the know have always been more than willing to give all the relevant information freely even without having been asked. It's people who don't want to hear the truth sticking their fingers in their ears and singing 'la la la la la can't hear you la la la la' that are the problem.
 
2012-07-24 12:02:39 PM  

the_vicious_fez: [T]he reason it's important to listen to your opposition, even if you think they're dead wrong, is because they won't listen to you if you're not answering their questions. Then you think they're idiots, they think the same about you, and nothing gets solved. That's not debate, that's just aural masturbation.


I have listened. I have gone to great lengths to explain evolution and the scientific method to the best of my abilities. I have directed them to books, web pages, YouTube videos, etc... that tackle the topics in respectful, honest, easy to digest chunks. And still they flail about and try to use the failure of Lammarkianism to try and disprove the modern theory of evolution. They argue against ideas that science has rejected for decades, if not centuries. They tell me I only beleive in evolution because I hate God and want to live a sinful life and not pay the eternal price for my evil ways.

I'm sorry. I'm done trying to be nice to these assbags.
 
2012-07-24 12:03:27 PM  
"First, let's be clear that where you stand on creation (a k a intelligent design, these days) vs. evolution has nothing to do with personal intelligence. There are very smart people on both sides of the issue."

i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-24 12:03:31 PM  

Flappyhead: Thorak: FTFA: "it gradually dawned on me that I no longer accepted my initial premise; I did not believe the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis were a literal chronicle of how the Earth and its life forms originated. "

Look, not even reasonable Christian theologians believe the Book of Genesis, or any of the rest of the bible, is a "literal chronicle" of anything. Literalism is what happens when people are too ignorant to grasp concepts like "metaphor" and "parable", which is especially odd for Christians, because Jesus freaking LOVED speaking in parables.

I'm all for people coming to the realization that faith does not trump science, but literalism is the refuge of people who don't even understand or know their own religion.

To quote Robert Bakker, paleontologist, dual PhD and ordained minister, to take a literal interpretation of the Bible is to rob it of its eternal message. Sadly that kind of thinking doesn't jive well with the "God just went *click*" crowd.


Farking this. So. Much. Farking. This.
 
2012-07-24 12:08:46 PM  
Author explains that he was once an ignorant ass who didnt listen to anyone, then blames others for not telling him sooner...

...soo nothing has changed.
 
2012-07-24 12:09:46 PM  

Marine1: Jim_Callahan: It's not some dark secret, religious people being wrong has been pretty much common knowledge since the Renaissance, people have just been subtler about it because of the church's whole tendency to brutally murder you for pointing it out thing.

Speaking of the Soviet era, the assertion that the church (that is, the Christian church) is somehow brutally murdering people these days for speaking out against the idea of God is ridiculous.


Read what he said again. See the problem with your refutation yet? When the Church had absolute power they did brutally murder people for daring to speak against God. You know, like some other religion that tends to have complete power still does to this day in the countries they dominate. Don't act like your religion's castration makes it a nice, peaceful religion that wouldn't hurt people.
 
2012-07-24 12:09:57 PM  

the_vicious_fez: I do like his points about polarization. You're not going to convince anyone of anything if you constantly act superior and if you treat your opposition as a collection of uneducated idiots.


That's the real problem with general discourse in America today: on almost any imaginable topic, both sides have ceased to acknowledge that their opponents think. Even those long famous for championing the idea that there is no One True Way have fallen into this trap, claiming that their opponents are not merely mistaken or misguided, but actually blind and unthinking, or even actually insane. Certainly the opposition is held to be unfit to debate: a group beyond help, that should be grateful just to be pitied, then shepherded along their poor, deprived lives in silence.

That's a fairly new concept. Discourse remains as gentle, in the general sense, as it has always been, which is to say not at all. But before some 50 years ago, sides generally agreed that everyone involved was at least in possession, and engagement, of a full set of mental faculties. Some groups went to far as to claim that their opponents' use of thought and reason was the whole problem -the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages provides the most infamous example of that- but implicit even in such a claim is an acknowledgment that your opponents have working minds.

That doesn't happen anymore. Claims are dismissed as derp, or denial, or any of a number of psychological phenomena indicative of a malfunctioning mind, and those dismissals are not said in jest. Until that stops, every issue will continue to be a battle zone. Why wouldn't they, when the very idea that you have a working mind is called into question at every turn?
 
2012-07-24 12:13:46 PM  

Ed Grubermann: the_vicious_fez: [T]he reason it's important to listen to your opposition, even if you think they're dead wrong, is because they won't listen to you if you're not answering their questions. Then you think they're idiots, they think the same about you, and nothing gets solved. That's not debate, that's just aural masturbation.

I have listened. I have gone to great lengths to explain evolution and the scientific method to the best of my abilities. I have directed them to books, web pages, YouTube videos, etc... that tackle the topics in respectful, honest, easy to digest chunks. And still they flail about and try to use the failure of Lammarkianism to try and disprove the modern theory of evolution. They argue against ideas that science has rejected for decades, if not centuries. They tell me I only beleive in evolution because I hate God and want to live a sinful life and not pay the eternal price for my evil ways.

I'm sorry. I'm done trying to be nice to these assbags.


Fair enough. Debate takes multiple people committed to the cause and it sounds like your opponents were not.

I will say this: for ethical reasons, I do not ever debate religion/science with anyone religious. I don't care if others do, but I will not. The reason being that I have renounced two religions and both times it was traumatic. It left scars. I've always believed in science, but the removal of some sort of target of prayer was extremely tough.

These shifts of thought happened when I was 13 and 20, roughly, and the first time I got sick after turning atheist was also the first time I got sick far away from home, on the other side of the country. It was absolutely miserable because I hadn't recalibrated my ability to hope yet. Instead of faith in a higher being, I needed to have faith in time, and instead of a night of praying to something to make it all better, I had to accept that I was on my own. I was lonely and miserable and scared.

I don't see a lot of compassion from many of the more vocal atheists about this issue. Overthrowing your belief system is not something to be taken lightly, nor does it happen on a whim. Expecting people who have placed their faith in a deity and built their lives around the values that said deity preaches to immediately throw it all away after being exposed to a different viewpoint is completely unrealistic.
 
2012-07-24 12:14:06 PM  
Apples and Oranges.
 
2012-07-24 12:14:40 PM  

Millennium: the_vicious_fez: I do like his points about polarization. You're not going to convince anyone of anything if you constantly act superior and if you treat your opposition as a collection of uneducated idiots.

That's the real problem with general discourse in America today: on almost any imaginable topic, both sides have ceased to acknowledge that their opponents think. Even those long famous for championing the idea that there is no One True Way have fallen into this trap, claiming that their opponents are not merely mistaken or misguided, but actually blind and unthinking, or even actually insane. Certainly the opposition is held to be unfit to debate: a group beyond help, that should be grateful just to be pitied, then shepherded along their poor, deprived lives in silence.

That's a fairly new concept. Discourse remains as gentle, in the general sense, as it has always been, which is to say not at all. But before some 50 years ago, sides generally agreed that everyone involved was at least in possession, and engagement, of a full set of mental faculties. Some groups went to far as to claim that their opponents' use of thought and reason was the whole problem -the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages provides the most infamous example of that- but implicit even in such a claim is an acknowledgment that your opponents have working minds.

That doesn't happen anymore. Claims are dismissed as derp, or denial, or any of a number of psychological phenomena indicative of a malfunctioning mind, and those dismissals are not said in jest. Until that stops, every issue will continue to be a battle zone. Why wouldn't they, when the very idea that you have a working mind is called into question at every turn?


You. You, I like. We should be friends.
 
2012-07-24 12:14:56 PM  

Ed Grubermann: Don't act like your religion's castration makes it a nice, peaceful religion that wouldn't hurt people.


Why not? It's worked for most other religions. Christianity, yes, but also Judaism, Shinto, Hinduism... even Buddhism has gone through militaristic phases when allowed to gain power, and nowadays it's just about the last faith that anyone would suspect of supporting such zealots. When you take away a religion's state power, said religion has little choice but to rebuild its culture without it. The effects of that are profound.
 
Displayed 50 of 129 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report